Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan, L. Higby RE: "Campaign Polling." 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/7/1972
To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan, L Higby RE: "Campaign Polling." 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/7/1972
To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: Requested National Journal article on the Jewish vote. 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], no date
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146192
label
WHSF: Contested, 45-9
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146192
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 45-9
description
This file contains:
To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan, L. Higby RE: "Campaign Polling." 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/7/1972
To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan, L Higby RE: "Campaign Polling." 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/7/1972
To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan RE: Requested National Journal article on the Jewish vote. 1pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], no date
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146192
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
424e7427ccd9f460
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
45
9
2/7/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan,
L. Higby RE: "Campaign Polling." 4pgs
45
9
2/7/1972
Campaign
Memo
To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan,
L Higby RE: "Campaign Polling." 4pgs
45
9
Campaign
Memo
To: H.R. Haldeman From: Gordon Strachan
RE: Requested National Journal article on
the Jewish vote. 1pg
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Page 1 of 1
Palls
February 7, 1972
cheon
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
L. HIGBY
SUBJECT:
Campaign Polling
A review of the Campaign polling situation indicates two main
weaknesses. First, you and the Attorney General are not
receiving polling information in a simple usable form. Second,
those individuals on the White House staff and at the Campaign
Committee, who could implement directives developed from the
polling information, are not receiving guidance.
The reasons the polling information is not in usable form are as
follows:
1. First, each of the three vendors has a slightly
different format for presentation of the statistical
backup. Their comments are not standardized
around a format that will answer quickly the questions common
to all states being surveyed.
2. When these non-standardised results are summarised
by Bob Teeter, the format he presents to you and the
Attorney General make it difficult to quickly assimilate
the information.
3. Teeter doesn't spend enough time on it.
At the December 7 meeting that you, Larry and I had with Bob Tester,
the discussion focused on the general outlines of the Campaign polling
plans. You gave general approval to these plans and granted access
to Teeter to our accumulated polling information. At that meeting,
2
Bob Tecter committed to certain deadlines for polling results which
he was unable to make for a variety of reasons. It is true that there
were some start-up problems incurred with some of the vendors.
However, those problems have now ironed themselves out according
to Tem Benham at ORC. Now the problem is one of giving Bob Teeter
specific instructions and deadlines as to how and when you want to
receive the results.
Teeter's methodology would not have to be radically changed in order
for the results to be presented to you in a usable form. His current
memoranda are disjointed, non-standardized and verbose. To solve
these problems I suggest that four basic documents be presented as
the results of each state arrive:
1. One-page summary cover sheet which would
give the state, polling dates, thumbnail sketch of
the current political situation as indicated by the
poll, the President's approval, a brief issue summary,
and trial heat position vis-a-vis the three major
contenders. It would serve as the quick summary
cover and the rest of the materials would serve as
increasingly complex backup.
2. Tecter's analysis of the results and his strategy
suggestions based on those results.
3. Teeter's recommendation of which material
should be given to whom from the data. The type
of material that Teeter might prepare here would
lip that the President's approval for handling both
the economy and Vietnam are much higher in
New Hampshire where the people are more conserva-
tive on the war and less troubled by unemployment.
Issues of concern to those in New Hampshire (possibly
pollution) would be noted so that those White House
staff charged with substantive responsibility could
3
direct the federal government's effort toward this
particular issue. Fred Malek, for example, through
his control of the Grantsmanship Program, could
direct an ecology project into New Hampshire. Florida
material might also include a view that different people
are blamed for school bussing in certain parts of the
state, i.e., voters in the Northern Panhandle of Florida
may in fact blame the "pointy head bureaucrats" that
Wallace talks about, whereas in Miami the courts
might be viewed as the institution primarily responsible.
In any event, this material should receive very limited
distribution. Agreement should be signed off on by you
and the Attorney General prior to distribution.
4. The individual vendor's analysis of the results and
the backup demographics with the details similar to
those we receive from Opinion Research Corporation.
Each of these three decuments should remain within
the exclusive control of you, the Attorney General and
Bob Teeter.
Certain individuals should obviously receive various parts of the
information and perhaps separate reports should be made for each
of them. This, however, may be clumsy and perhaps one general
report is better. There
There are also certain peculiar examples where one individual should
receive a certain piece of polling information. The example which
comes to mind is Harry Dent's responsibility recently to go to South
Carolina and negotiate Jim Helshouser out of the Senate race and
stabilize the Republican party situation in that state. Had polling
information been available for that state, Dent should have applied to
you and the Attorney General for clearance to have trial heat results
which would accomplish the goal established by the Attorney General.
This system would work If Jeb Magruder and Gordon Strachan were
given tandem responsibility for directing Bob Teeter's efforts. They
tried this for the first two weeks in January but were defeated for
several reasons. First, Teeter became inundated with work in having
all the fourteen first-wave polling results arrive almost himultaneously.
4
Therefore, he could not function effectively no matter who was
asking him questions. Second, a series of basically non-campaign
Presidential requests of Teeter's polling information were funneled
through me to Tecter. He used these projects (which in total would
comprise three full work-days) as an excuse to the Attorney General
for non-delivery of results. The nature of these projects were
disclosed to Magruder recently to convince him that Tecter's claims
of overwork by the White House were unfounded. He agreed that they
were no excuse. Nonetheless, Magruder and Strachan should be given
authority to determine priorities for Teeter and jointly control his
workload. Other members of the White House staff and Campaign staff
should not have access to Tecter. This will insure project completion
within an acceptable time frame. Reports would still come first only
to the Attorney General and Haldeman. They could be reviewed and
distributed as you and the Attorney General felt appropriate.
If you agree with this approach, Magruder will get the Attorney General's
concurrence and this system will be initiated.
Agree
Disagree
Other
LH:kb
February 7, 1972
MILCGRANDUE POR:
II. 24 HALDEMAN
This
CORSON STRACHAN
L. MONY
Consider Polling
for tirmes the Count insurer india ing in main
not mpone 12 -, your :c will
Information Conced,
Phone State the WILL will N.C. Credito
but Driver tives & Inpid is
this assess receiving millions.
file they Personation le un) in united form are AG
1. Flort, and veriore hrs n,
differention to a the untilities
below. and 12 GSG 000
) a AND a YOU quickly the questions colomon
to 011 No: Datey moveyed.
2. What's recults ave cummissived
Via ******** toyou and the
C. to quicidy
the
2. Zouter County required time on 1.
281 Nonember Larry cul 1141 while Total,
first 11.00 the Ceremica publicy
2011 merced POLICE
10 % I to information. At that
2
Dob Theres consumition to certain desditines for polls $ recults which
however.
And a reality : 2 : 3421 life Distine = Cat Carro
WELLO
1.
invoiced THE nome of the verdous.
However,
whave 31 Irea: 1 thereactives with cosonting
to Ten
:-
1 parklem 10 CLO < ≤ rising D: D:B Tecler
and DR is he If and when you with 13 5
receive in
Torter's
:
tree have to to certically of trad In order
forther
you in Nob LAS. ED
20
Made 14:4 20 this
Card
suite
3:01P Medic is La processed 19
De year....... ... street
1.
Citim
cover floord which we H.I
give
this Card it about we
No Club
46 les 06 in c: by the
DOL fir
the 177, a covernary,
name
Ce $2500
0
an
P7 legisle valued celle DE
Request when
in T revulted and his strategy
to
3. T of with Louterial
Viteo Pac Cate The type
with
Months card for Insulting
Visition eve
1 Power vote
... THE 2001
Terms G. Cont 9-2 No.: (monthly
makes
3 U. b
3
sel invorment's offect toward this
$.00 emergle, Chronch
( corld
Harved 1:00 Florida
Cullevant people
office
windle
of
Florida
indict beat that
Vehrect
00 is Notes 11 tuo crusts
recroncible.
is
very
Validad
and in 3 Call by you
0.0 . I. Con 31 prior to
4 The Ive 1 Sale inclyrin 05/20 restite end
00
ONY Trite is
veh Contact: 30.
Tech 71 10% actenta Willin
Co enstal et 244 Cio General and
Bow :
Certify his receive various parto of the
to wid bank to for ench
hade, housenes, VP it purkaps CHO general
this Lotuz. been
There work 2 dest specificate Cos where one individual should
reselve a
2.10 which
comes 1) state) NY - 15 All / Webt try is :3 is Corth
Corditon end the unco and
custom Had polling
Informational
Box
have
5:
plice
to
yournAtis, have teld hots results
which Inst and is to Missavey General.
7740 etall Challen Strehm were
Cred Day
(sied) decord Low
N.: ICEN Any
at Non Live chroici
4
Therebyo, bee: Me!! the divity ro malter who Was
Cell
Lime
is andered
and 2. Inc. were formal
Cor mais They State ( United world
Total
110011 water General
Seri
Therever
C.D.)
Total
chime
etc
ONLY Name: Dongood (M) Lary
were
spend 1:23 given
D which
:-
brick 10a.
is letter
C.C.
where) Means Where
enj. 10.00 consiste.
Eyer the Design Attorney Consel's
CONSUMER =4 OFCA is be
Age.
is
Bleegros
Cliscr
LII:LD
File
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: Feb. 3
TO:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
GORDON STRACHAN
You asked for the National
Journal article on the Jewish
vote. The January 8 issue
with the passage marked is attached.
Rob Odle and Larry Goldberg
believe the source of the
statement is Max Fisher, who
reportedly feels slighted by
the White House because he has
not had a sufficient number of
appointments with the President.